DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on August 5, 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both Species A and B include a body that is permanently connected to the harness. This is not found persuasive because both versions of the forward connection arrangement function in completely different manners using retention components that are structurally distinct and have mutually exclusive physical features and modes of operation. For example, in Species A, the act of “rigidly connecting” the retention component to the body is the same act that removably secures the load-bearing member to the body. On the other hand, in Species B, the retention component can be secured to the body without the need for a load-bearing member. The act of securing the load-bearing member is separate from the act of installing the retention component. Furthermore, the embodiment of Species B must be manually actuated via rotation of the cam to increase friction on the rope and thereby lock the rope into place. Whereas the embodiment of Species A is operational with a rope or a web, and is locked into place upon installation of the retention component without further action required by the user.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that Examiner has not indicated that the species have different classifications, no such indication is required for a species restriction. Species may be properly restrictable while still being classified in the same class or sub-class. For species, the question is not the field of search, but the search burden otherwise created by a requirement to search for multiple distinct inventions simultaneously. See MPEP §802.02.
Lastly, the Examiner did not rely on “a mere statement of conclusion” to justify the need to a species restriction/election. Instead, Examiner pointed out the distinct and mutually exclusive characteristics of each species, as described by Applicant and detailed in the drawings, that led to the conclusion that a species restriction was required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, Examiner notes that claims 16-18 are drawn to an embodiment of the invention that requires the flexible load-bearing member include an energy dissipation region that will fail upon application of force above a certain threshold. This feature appears to relate solely to Species A as detailed on p. 11 of the specification, and appears to be both not disclosed to operate with Species B and additionally be functionally incompatible with Species B as a practical matter.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 12, and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A and/or C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “harness according to claim 1 having two dissimilar forward connection arrangements” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP §608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a body that is permanently connected to the harness” which is indefinite, because the body is a sub-element of the forward connection arrangement which is itself an element of the harness. Therefore, the body is part of the harness and logically cannot be connected to the harness, i.e., to itself. Just as one would not say that the thumb is connected to the hand, or the wheel is connected to the car. Dependent claims 6-11 and 13-15 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of flexible connecting members each of which is removably secured to the harness by the or each forward connection arrangement” which is indefinite, because it is unclear which of the two forward connection arrangements is being referred to by the recitation of “by the…forward connection arrangement”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 8,333,262 B1), hereinafter Carpenter, in view of Oshio (JP 2011200640 A).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter discloses a harness for supporting a person working at height (abstract, regarding a reconfigurable, modular ergonomic sit harness or saddle for use by linesmen, arborists, or the like) comprising
a back (back pad assembly 102; fig. 1),
leg loops (lower leg strap assemblies 126; fig. 1),
two forward connection arrangements (climbing plates 802 of the suspension bridge assembly 114, as shown in figs. 1 and 7) and
a flexible load-bearing member (line 808; fig. 7) that extends between the connection arrangements (as shown in figs. 1 and 7),
the forward connection arrangements serving to transferring load from the back and the leg loops to the load-bearing member (as shown in fig. 1), in which each forward connection arrangement comprises:
a body that is permanently connected to the harness (as shown in fig. 1.
Carpenter does not appear to specifically disclose a retention component that can be removably and rigidly connected to the body to removably secure the flexible load-bearing member to the body.
However, Oshio is in the field of braking devices for ropes (abstract) and teaches a retention component (swing piece 8; fig. 2) that can be removably and rigidly connected to the body (plate-like main body 4; as shown in figs. 2 and 4 via the cylinder 45 and associated components) to removably secure the flexible load-bearing member (rope 16; fig. 2) to the body (para. [0015] of translation, regarding when a large force withdrawing from the upper end A side of the plate-shaped main body 4 to the outer anchor side suddenly acts on the climbing rope 16, the force applied from the climbing rope 16 to the swing piece 8; the rope guide portion 10 of the swing piece 8 has a force that pushes down the operation portion 14, and the traveling of the climbing rope 16 is more strongly suppressed, and finally the movement of the climbing rope 16 is prevented; as shown in figs. 5 and 6; Examiner notes that the swing piece 8 can also be manually controlled per para. [0010] of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Carpenter to include a retention component that can be removably and rigidly connected to the body to removably secure the flexible load-bearing member to the body as taught by Oshio, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the flexible load-bearing member can be properly secured depending either manual or automatic operation (see Oshio, para. [0010] of translation).
Regarding claim 6, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses in which the retention components include an adjuster (from Oshio, operation portion 14 of swing piece 8) that can be caused to grip the flexible load-bearing member at one of a range of positions (see again figs. 5-6 of Oshio; see again of para. [0010] of Oshio translation).
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses in which the adjuster (from Oshio, 14) allows the effective length of the flexible load-bearing member to decrease by application of a tensile force to a free end of the flexible load-bearing member (as shown in fig. 5 of Oshio, depending on the orientation of the device; see also para. [0014] of Oshio).
Regarding claim 8, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses in which the adjuster (from Oshio, 14) allows the effective length of the flexible load-bearing member to increase upon manual intervention by a user prior to application of a tensile force to the flexible load-bearing member (as shown in fig. 5 of Oshio, depending on the orientation of the device; see also para. [0014] of Oshio).
Regarding claim 9, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses in which the secured flexible load-bearing member passes through the body (as shown in fig. 2 of Oshio).
Regarding claim 10, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses having two similar forward connection arrangements (as shown in fig. 1, as modified by Oshio).
Regarding claim 11, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention having two dissimilar forward connection arrangements.
However, it would obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date of the invention to configure the invention to have two dissimilar forward connection arrangements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, it would be obvious to reconfigure the only one of the climbing plates 802 of Carpenter as a braking device 1 of Oshio, or to configure the braking devices 1 of Oshio as mirror images of one another, for the purpose of simplifying or optimizing, respectively, the design and construction of the harness.
Regarding claim 13, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses in which the body of each forward connection arrangement is permanently connected to a waist webbing that extends about the back of the harness (upper suspension assemblies 412a, 412b, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses in which the body of each forward connection arrangement is permanently connected to a respective riser that is connected to a respective leg loop (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Carpenter as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention having a plurality of flexible connecting members each of which is removably secured to the harness by the or each forward connection arrangement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention to include a plurality of flexible connecting members each of which is removably secured to the harness by the or each forward connection arrangement, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The purpose for doing so would be to ensure sufficient strength of the flexible connecting members for the desired operation.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights